Subnostr

I'm not sure how effective that would be. The costs of maintaining a fork are quite high.

Here is an idea which is lower cost and potentially friendlier to the maintainers:

what if they could create a repo event which highlights that they are not the maintainer (empowered to merge code on the repository / a repository that other people are using as an authoritative codebase)?

If those they see as maintainers are on nostr then they could add them, even if that maintainer hasn't created a repo event yet.

people who also want to see the repository use nostr could use this and accept that the number of other contributors / maintainers who see it might be lower.

to achieve this the nip34 spec would need to be tweaked so that it is not assumed that the author is a maintainer if the maintainers parameter is present.

sommerfeld 1y ago

>The costs of maintaining a fork are quite high.

They don't have to maintain a fork, that is only 1 of the options. They can use their fork as a proxy to open PRs in github/gitlab/etc using the nostr submitted patches.

> what if they could create a repo event which highlights that they are not the maintainer

Why not just submit the repo event with an empty maintainers list? It's essentially the same thing, or not? 🤔

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

DanConwayDev 1y ago

no. nip34 wording:

> `["maintainers", "", ...]`

perhaps it should be:

> `["maintainers", "", ...]` // optional: if omitted, author is sole maintainer

I think this might break a number of existing repo events.